[MD] Faith

[david buchanan]

Howdy MOQers:

Ian said to dmb:
When you said this (quoted and re-quoted) "Faith, by definition, is a belief 
held in the absence of evidence. The amount of evidence supporting the 
belief in tomorrow's sunrise is more than ample and so requires no faith." 
...The problem is the absoluteness / relativeness of terms like "absence", 
"more", "ample" and "no".

dmb says:
Absoluteness? Um, I guess you're confusing me with Ham or Platt. As I 
understand it, the "Absolute" is crypto-theological nonsense and there is no 
such thing as an absolute truth. For the gazillionth time, I simply oppose 
the idea that unsupported beliefs are the same as beliefs based on 
experience. In fact, I'm basically saying that there are many good reasons 
to believe that the Sun will come up tomorrow, but belief in things such as 
the absolute and the absoulute truth have no such support.

Ian continued:
...The question is how much evidence, how objective or otherwise, how well 
observed, how well founded, and how well argued on top of those selected 
foundations, etc. ie "what counts as sufficient evidence".

dmb says:
Exactly. That's the question. I'm simply saying that faith based beliefs, by 
definition, are not supported by sufficient evidence, whereas the existence 
of night and day is very well founded in experience. But this is where you 
start to lose me...

Ian said:
Science is a well argued and well formed process, but you still have to 
believe in that process and you still have to "have faith in" it's 
metaphysical roots, and suspend disbelief where it gets small, large, 
complex, unpredictable, awesome and emergent, simply because its explanatory 
arguments are "good".

dmb says:
We have to "believe" in the scientific process and "have faith" and "suspend 
disbelief"? I understand that you and others are making this assertion, but 
I fail to see how it works. I mean, so far all I see on this question is a 
repeated attempt to characterize the scientific process this way but where 
is the actual argument? Where is the answer to my complaint? I mean, if the 
scientific process has been working for hundreds of years, in what sense do 
we have to "believe" in it? How can you sit at a computer and type out the 
idea that mathematical axioms are believed on the basis of faith? Isn't the 
existence of your computer evidence enough that we have good reason think 
math is true? And does the fact that science can't give us perfect knowledge 
or complete knowledge really mean that we have to "suspend disbelief"? I 
mean, you seem to be suggesting that science requires faith because it can't 
give us absolute truth and is not based on an absolute foundation. But I 
don't think that's what I'm talking about at all. Talk about absolutes has 
always struck me as completely ridiculous and I don't understand why such 
fictional nonsense keeps rearing its ugly head. I'm just talking about the 
quality of our beliefs and I'm only saying that science has "explanatory 
argument that are 'good'," as compared to faith-based beliefs.

Ian said:
Faith (as a word) carries religious baggage, (and no doubt definitions that 
refer to lack of evidence) but I don't think it helps to deny that science 
(including solar astronomy) requires a little faith too.

dmb says:
How do you fiqure that solar astronomy requires faith? What practices or 
assertions are unsupported by evidence and experience? What part of that 
science rests on faith? What in the world are you talking about? Seriously. 
I can't imagine why we "require a little faith" to do astrophysics. My hunch 
is that you're simply pointing out that science proceeds in the face of many 
uncertainties and just don't that that is the same thing as faith. I don't 
think faith is holding a belief that falls short of perfect or absolute 
knowledge simply because there is no such thing and that would describe all 
beliefs. In fact, I think this impossible and completely fictional standard 
only distorts the real issue, which is much less grandiose. Some beliefs are 
supported by lots of evidence and some are not.

Ian said:
....The difference between scientific belief and religious faith is great, 
but not absolute .... it is simply a pragmatic one. (and I'm with you on the 
working defintion) - I just don't think we get anywhere with is /is-not 
debates.

dmb says:
Yes, the difference is great, but not absoulute. I agree. But aren't you 
equivocating rather wildly here? Maybe that's why you just don't think we 
get anywhere with is/isn't debates?

The the absence of absolute truth, whatever that's supposed to be, really 
mean that all so-called truths are the same, that we can make no 
distinctions between supported and unsupported beliefs?

Of course not.

Thanks,
dmb

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/